No, it wasn’t that one. It was a lot more obscure, and was mostly just back story to the main events.
COVID was an interesting test on how society adapts and changes. Some could adapt by wearing a mask and getting vaccinated, some others… not so much. There will always be people that either die, or get dragged kicking and screaming into the new paradigm.
Much of this was social as people could not accept not going to restaurants or movie theaters. Many of them died.
Though this is still ongoing, most thinking people accept that the world does change. Whether they like it or not.
(I’m assuming that my question about the Carrington event is accurate, and that all the earth’s electricity would be ruined)
It would only take a week for the food and water to run out, for almost everybody. And that would cause people to turn feral very quickly.
So I’m afraid that the first quote above (about supply chains) is too optimistic…because of the second quote (essential workers not showing up) being true.,which results in the third quote (about people going feral) also being too optimistic.
People have withstood and overcome terrible disasters (Hiroshima, massacres in Rwanda) and then carried on , to display truly heroic acts of humanity, caring for others, refusing to go feral…
But in every case, those people have known that the rest of civilization is still functioning, just a few miles away.
If the entire earth is affected…well, I don’t wanna be around to see it. 
I think there are plenty of Donner party smaller scenarios where your thesis about hope being on the way doesn’t really apply.
I think in situations of genuine depravation, people tend to hunker down more than lash out. Maybe they’ll eat a dead body or do that sort of feral thing, but wilding type stuff, you actually need some availability of physical resources if you’re trying to maximize violence in a given world. Otherwise it’s mostly going to be starving, depravation, disease. Less glamorous I know.
Yeah, things would be bad for a while, but they have planned for that, and Civilization would not collapse. Some nations might.
We have well over a month of both, and there’s no reason why water cant continue flowing. I am not saying things wont get bad, but Civilization will not collapse.
People here are saying that complex systems are more fragile. I disagree - simple systems are fragile. Complex systems are flexible. Complex systems have redundancies. Simple systems don’t
What does “ruined” mean? All the high voltage wires would still be there, as would all the power plants. Sure, a bunch of components would be fried, but I’m sure that most power companies, with government and civilian help, would be able to jury-rig repairs to get enough power flowing to keep people from starving. It’ll be rough for a while, but civilization will survive.
The initial question about how the former billionnaire retains authority over his employees in a post-civilisation and post-money world is an interesting one, and is related to the question of how despots in general (such as the Supreme Leader of North Korea, or mediaeval monarchs) hold onto power, albeit on a smaller scale.
It is an arrangement characterised by periods of stability, followed by sudden change (likely resulting in the ruler losing his head).
Stability is favoured by a number of factors and strategies, including:
a general human tendency to fit into a hierarchy. play one’s part in the system, and get on with things, as long as they remain tolerable;
a select set of “trusted” lieutenants (of course they are never really to be trusted) who enjoy favourable conditions and whose interests are best served (for the moment) by maintaining the status quo and competing for the leader’s favour;
some degree of charisma or mythmaking that makes it seem as if the current dispensation is the natural way of things;
a culture of fear, whereby any individual seeking to overthrow the leader, or to gain support for overthrowing the leader, risks severe punishment;
toleration of a low level of grumbling combined with vicious and somewhat arbitrary crackdowns on outright disloyalty;
ostentatious displays of generosity and mercy, as well as very public punishment;
careful delegation and compartmentalisation so that no individual among the cadre of lieutenants has the full picture or amasses significantly more power than the others;
the leader’s spies are everywhere - nobody can ever be sure whom they can trust;
divide and rule - foment rivalry and distrust among the lieutenants;
good old-fashioned inspirational leadership, uniting people’s efforts in support of common endeavours.
Of course the period of stability is not guaranteed to last indefinitely but with luck it might last a lifetime. The most dangerous period is probably the initial hours and days, followed by crises caused by external events.
You’re forgetting the strongest tool: belief. It could be belief in rule of law; it could be belief in the Movement or in the Goal; it could be belief in the divine right of kings or how the king and the land are one; or it can be belief directly in the ruler as a divine being. The reason the Kims have been in power for so long is that they have convinced their country that they are superhuman entities who are the only people capable of leading.
If billionaires were serious about surviving for years inside a bunker, they’d start cults.
Yes, I really agree with this and I sort of touched on it in my third point. I especially agree with the idea of starting a cult. Along with this I would suggest resisting any temptation to use power for sex. The most effective way for a cult leader to cause resentment and disillusionment, leading to a perception of “feet of clay” and swift overthrow, is probably having sex with cult members.
One point in favour of billionaires retaining authority is that they are used to being in positions of power (in their businesses and among their personal and household staff). This probably affects their demeanour and their confidence in giving instructions with the expectation of being followed. This in turn makes it more likely that others will perceive them as a credible leader and trust them to lead effectively.
After COVID and Hurricane Sandy, 9/11 and the blackout of 2003 and a few other crisis and weather events, I can see a justification for having a second home away from NYC in which to ride out such events in relative comfort for a few weeks or months. One of the reasons we got a second home in the country.
That doesn’t mean I think we need to install a titanium blast door in the basement and replace the white picket fence with 12 concrete topped with electrified concertina wire. This is just a place where we can go to not be confined to a city apartment. It’s not meant to be a bunker to resist a determined siege until civilization sorts itself out.
Makes me think of how much the rural west is dependent on military bases and trucks moving cargo on the interstates.
“This pork smells really long.”
-
Millionaires can be millionaires because they are the lazy, stupid children of millionaires and billionaires, have won Lotto or co-wrote a mega-hit that will be forgotten by Tuesday. Billionaires, on the other hand are worth billions because they think ahead and plan for all manner of contingencies. Billionaires understand greed and desire better than most [ref - television, real life] and will be planning on how to breed loyalty from their mercenary henchpeople.
-
-
- Pass
-
-
Giant radioactive mutant ants
-
If humans can maintain effective literacy in English or other key languages for 2-3 generations then its possible. By then the bullets, V8 interceptors and petrol will be gone, and people will have calmed down a bit. Peoples’ diets will no longer be supercharged on tinned food, and legumes. I suspect the first 10 years after the collapse will mainly consist of farting.
700 million people live without electricity now, many others with regularly interrupted power supply. They will do OK in a blackout situation.
I don’t think it’s a question of humans going extinct, but rather of modern civilizations collapsing world wide.
Places that are a subsistence level, but essentially self supporting will continue as they were. The problem is everyplace else will also be forced to be self supporting. Trade will move at the speed of a horse drawn cart.
That will greatly decrease the carrying capacity of the planet, so if the catastrophe itself hasn’t reduced the population to 18th century levels, then starvation and conflict will do it.
The initial few years and possibly decades post catastrophe are likely to be pretty brutal, until things settle down into the normal levels of chaos that humans historically lived through.
A bunker that gets you through that initial say 5-50 year period where a new stability appears will insure a place for you and your kids. I think the wise thing for a billionaire to do might be to have a bunker to survive the catastrophe, and then a year or two. Then a plan and resources to transition from a bunker to a self sustaining compound/ranch/town.
Minions are kept in line by letting them bring in their families, and making sure they all see it as a community that is in this together. Keep conflict to normal political squabbling, and only use violence to enforce order in the most critical situations (supposedly as happens in society today).
I wonder if people like the Amish or Mennonites would do better in the aftermath of a collapse of civilization. They’re still dependent on manufactured goods, like shovels and plows but may be more familiar with using horse and oxen for farm work.
Most of those 700 million are as civilized as you and I.
That was the plot setup of The Long Tomorrow by Leigh Brackett - the Amish & Mennonites take over political power in the post-nuclear-war U.S. and pass a constitutional amendment enforcing deurbanization of the country.
Civilized versus civilization. I’m not saying people living without access to stable (or any) electricity are barbarians, but that they are living without many of the modern conveniences and necessities that make up civilization.
Many of them have phones and even electric lights, so I’m talking about things like non-open combustion heating and cooking, in-home clean water and sewage, being able to run down to the store to get something for dinner, quick access to modern medicine, etc.
I think if they’re self sufficient, or can easily become self sufficient, for food, then they’re in a good place. Disregarding raiders or whatever.
They will have quite a long time to figure out where the next shovel comes from, but you only have a few days to figure out where the next meal comes from. If they have seed stock, knowledge, labor, and safety, they should be in good shape to grow food.
It’s easy to think of a catastrophe that would make growing food using traditional farming methods impossible (nuclear, volcanic, or impact related sun blocking, for example), but if that is the catastrophe, then the prospect of human extinction goes way up.
They might, but location is against them: in any truly major collapse, let alone a nuclear exchange with a near-peer power, the eastern seaboard from South Carolina to Rhode Island is probably a goner. In fact except maybe for a few tiny enclaves (and they’re much fewer now than sixty years ago) I wouldn’t bet on much east of the Mississippi making it.
Also, while oxen might survive a collapse due to the sheer number of cattle in the USA being raised for beef, horses are now dramatically fewer. A three-year nuclear winter/ famine might see the last horse eaten by desperate survivors.